> I've been seeing this argument in creationist literature for a long time.> I believe it could be classified as irrational, but maybe we need to spell> out why, instead of just dismissing the argument. Most people have not> been trained in logic or scientific method.> > My response would be along the lines that much knowledge of history is> based on inference. This includes not only events before humans, but> anything that wasn't written down accurately and preserved until now. And> David Hume extended the critique against knowledge of prehistory to include> even current understanding -- you see an effect, he said, but you cannot> prove its cause; causality is only a habit of mind. So there can be no> true knowledge of any process, whether humans were there or not.> > Of course Hume didn't succeed in killing science with this argument; but he> did create a new career path for philosophers trying to figure out how to> justify inference.> Despite this philosophical conundrum, I think it's fair to say that science> has made some progress since the 18th century.> > Apparently some young-earth creationists are so desperate to defend their> view that they are willing to tear down all other knowledge in order to do> it. Kind of like tearing down a city to get material to build barricades.

& such questions about inference don't just have to do with
the past. Do we know that there are _really_ electrons, pions, &c? So
some YECs find themselves allied with those post-modernists who think
that scientists have simply "constructed" quarks &c instead of
discovering them. & there is _some_ truth in that - as long as you
don't think that quarks are _entirely_ a construct, no more or less real
than elves and trolls.
George Murphy